Upper Stage Issue Causes Arianespace Launch Failure, Costing 2 Satellites
Upper stage issue causes Arianespace launch failure, costing 2 satellites:
An overnight launch of Arianespace's Vega rocket failed after reaching space, costing France and Spain an Earth-observing satellite each. The failure represents the second in two years after Vega had built up a spotless record over its first six years of service.
[...] Something went wrong with the liquid-fueled [fourth] stage after it had reached an altitude of over 200km. While it's not entirely clear at the time what had failed, in the words of Arianespace CEO Stéphane Israël, "The speed was not nominal anymore." This caused the upper stage and satellites to veer off the planned trajectory, and Arianespace lost control of the vehicle shortly afterward. The spacecraft returned to Earth near where the upper stage was expected to fall in an area that's completely uninhabited.
The failure happened at a stage of the launch where Arianespace is able to obtain detailed telemetry data from tracking stations in North America.
[...] The company's initial investigation focused on the engine of the liquid-fueled fourth stage, specifically "a problem related to the integration of the fourth-stage AVUM nozzle activation system," which was "the most likely cause of the loss of control of the launcher." Arianespace has already named a European Space Agency official who will head the inquiry into the failure, which will focus on why the problem wasn't caught and corrected prior to launch.
Bad Cabling Blamed for Failed Launch of European Satellites
Bad cabling blamed for failed launch of European satellites:
The European Space Agency said the Vega carrier rocket deviated from its trajectory eight minutes after liftoff from Kourou, in French Guiana, late Monday.
France-based Arianespace said an initial investigation showed the first [three] stages of the Vega launch vehicle had functioned as planned. When the final stage of the rocket—known as AVUM—ignited, the spacecraft tumbled off course, leading to a "loss of mission," it said.
"A problem related to the integration of the fourth-stage AVUM nozzle activation system is the most likely cause of the loss of control of the launcher," Arianespace said.
The company's chief technical officer, Roland Lagier, said data indicated the issue was down to wrongly installed cables in a system controlling the thrusters.
He blamed quality control and "a series of human errors," for the problem.
Vega Rocket Failure Apparently Caused by Human Error
Vega Rocket Failure Apparently Caused by Human Error:
An Arianespace Vega rocket carrying two satellites failed to reach orbit yesterday after experiencing a catastrophic failure eight minutes into the launch. Officials are attributing the loss of the rocket to a “series of human errors.”
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
Related Stories
SpaceX snags launch contract from Arianespace after Vega rocket fails twice
In a rare victory for international launch competition, SpaceX has snagged a contract to launch an Italian Earth observation satellite from European launch monopoly and political heavyweight Arianespace.
After spending the better part of a decade with its head in the sand as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket rapidly came to dominate the global launch market, Arianespace has become increasingly reliant on its ability to entice politicians into forcing European Union member states to launch any and all domestic satellites and spacecraft on its Ariane 5, Ariane 6, and Vega rockets. Save for a few halting, lethargic technology development programs that have yet to bear any actionable fruit, the company – heavily subsidized by European governments – has almost completely failed to approach head-on the threat posed by SpaceX by prioritizing the development of rockets that can actually compete with Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy on cost and performance.
[...] A recent development offers the best look yet at what many European space agencies likely suffer through as a consequence of their governments signing away access to an increasingly competitive launch industry – often seemingly in return for Arianespace selecting contractors or (re)locating development hubs or factories in certain countries. Notably, sometime in September 2021, the Italian Space Agency (ASI) confirmed signs that it was moving the launch of its COSMO SkyMed CSG-2 Earth observation satellite from a new Arianespace rocket to SpaceX's Falcon 9.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Tokolosh on Thursday November 19 2020, @03:27AM (9 children)
It is amazing that it is easier to diagnose faulty cabling (wiring?) when the rocket is at the bottom of the ocean in bits, than when it is sitting in front of you on the pad.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 19 2020, @04:23AM
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:29AM (7 children)
FTFA:
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Thursday November 19 2020, @12:58PM
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/17/european-vega-rocket-suffers-second-failure-in-three-launches/ [spaceflightnow.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday November 19 2020, @01:09PM (5 children)
Also note that a human pilot is trained to check for cross cable attachment before each flight typically during taxi. Our ancestors did eat this shit many times before and did resolve the issue. It's young and brave who have to do it again and again.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @03:35PM (4 children)
Very interesting comment. Yes, here in the US I lament this whole culture of "old stuff is crap, we have to toss it and start over". I mean, there's always room for improving things, but why not learn from past designs, and mistakes? Please don't misunderstand, it's not an all-or-nothing thing- plenty of youth are learning from the farts, but I keep seeing mistakes in designs and manufacturing that I know someone already learned from... But I've always been one to take things apart, so I have a pretty good understanding of how things have been done.
I would have expected the connectors to be unique, or keyed, or very clearly marked on the connector to prevent these mistakes. And hopefully several levels of inspection?
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday November 19 2020, @04:28PM (3 children)
My perhaps the most important point as I can see it is that the issue is well known and it is well known for about 100 years. What is happening now is that "cable connections" are being replaced by software commands, but people who design this software have no clue whatsoever about this previous human experience and are arrogant enough to actually dismiss it outright. No pilot like myself would ever write code that would send a turn command without checking first if the right turn device is attached. Coding this large bag of human experience is the hard part as opposed to just trust the crap that comes as an input. Note that the error is from Airbus so we should guess their airplanes designed similar and they do overwrite pilot's input as well.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:04PM (2 children)
Again, interesting what you write, and as I read I'm thinking: there's really no way to fully test the entire rocket system. I think they could test the thruster / reaction control jets, but it wouldn't be easy. Still, would have saved a huge amount of $.
Again, and as someone else commented here, the connectors need to be unique so that there's no possibility of mixup.
On another similar web board (ahem) someone had the gall to say that machines are smarter than humans.
Firstly, it's too broad of a statement, as so many are these days. Maybe a correctly working machine is smarter / faster / more accurate than a human, but the machine might fail, or have limited or false knowledge, as with 737MAX MCAS, so a human should be able to override if necessary. That's my $0.02.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Thursday November 19 2020, @11:44PM (1 child)
Exactly. Actually, there is no way to fully test anything. That's why one builds on experience. She does as elders did without questioning why simply because there is no way to now exactly why. It's just many dead bodies paved this experience way.
One slowly adds to this way and never replaces it.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @11:49PM
"Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
- (slightly reworded) George Santayana
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:39AM (7 children)
Design them so it's impossible to plug them in upside down. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't do that in the first place.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @12:32PM
We replaced all the connectors with USB-C. What could possibly go wrong.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday November 19 2020, @02:34PM
It's standard to do that in aerospace, or at least it was 30 odd years ago...
Thing is, it's also standard (or was) to explain to the new guys that whenever you design something that "cannot" be plugged the wrong way you should also _expect_ that the universe will create a smarter idiot with a bigger hammer who _will_ plug it the wrong way. It's a safety barrier, but it should not be relied upon exclusively.
I'd be more worried about why the doesn't seem to have been any integration / end-to-end testing, or how they missed this. That is what caught Boeing out with Starliner, but it's kind of what you expect from Boeing these days, while Arianespace still has (or had) a solid engineering and reliability reputation. Must be quite worrying for Arianespace, SpaceX is already eating their lunch on price, if they lose the slight reliability edge they had, tough to see what's left for them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 19 2020, @04:37PM (3 children)
My finger can be inserted into my nose in more than one orientation. Furthermore, I have more than one finger that is plug in compatible with each nostril. So nothing prevents using the wrong one or the wrong way. A manual on the proper way would be helpful.
Maybe the software could be smart enough to realize that when it commanded thruster A, but thruster B actually reacted, that maybe they are
weirdwired incorrectly. Alternately each thruster could identify itself as part of the protocol. Or each thruster could have a unique at manufacture time GUID. The software could consult an IoT database in the cloud to identify which thruster it is talking with.If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday November 19 2020, @05:32PM (2 children)
Yeah, and you've just made your software much more complex. Which means more bugs, more testing, more time, and a lot more $$$$.
Better to ensure the plugs only go in one way, and that the tech doing the install doesn't have access to a hammer.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 19 2020, @06:07PM
Could such simplistic solutions actually work?
I still like the cloud database idea.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:14PM
Not a flight controller engineer, but I'm pretty sure the software already knows from gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc., what the motion vectors are. What it does with a discrepancy is the issue. I'll be the first to admit that it'd be annoying to have to program it to compensate for opposite thruster behavior, or other major mistakes.
I agree and commented above- there are ways to make connectors unique, including just using 1 connector for the 2 jets. Or 2 different sized connectors. And assembly techs that know to never use force. If there's a problem, escalate to supervisor, engineer, etc.
But again, I propose they could have tested most of these kinds of subsystems before flight.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @10:14PM
This wasn't a case of something plugged in upside down, like the Boeing 777 fires, but putting plug A into socket B and vice-versa. This is possible because sockets A and B are on identical control modules. The traditional fix for this particular problem is to space the modules apart and then make the cables too short to reach the wrong module, since the cables go to opposite sides of the rocket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @11:44AM
and here i thought they forgot to refuel the capture/landing barge ...
(Score: 4, Funny) by TrentDavey on Thursday November 19 2020, @06:24PM (1 child)
Fix it by firing the chief administrator and releasing a Twitter saying the statement of Vega failure was "highly inaccurate"... and the rocket is doing good... probably have a successful launch by Easter.
That's how you fix it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday November 19 2020, @11:49PM
No, just give Ukraine back to Russia and it will work as it always did.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.